Praveen Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2026

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                1                               MCRC-8183-2018
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                       &
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
                                                 ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4831 of 2017
                                               SANJU @ SANJAY AND OTHERS
                                                          Versus
                                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                             Shri Sudesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants.
                             Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 176 of 2018 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus SANJU @ SANJAY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. Shri Sudesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8183 of 2018 PRAVEEN SOLANKI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for the applicant.

Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Sudesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD

2 MCRC-8183-2018 Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Both these two appeals and one M.Cr.C. are filed by the convicted appellants as well as State and complainant, being aggrieved of judgment dated 31/10/2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.ST/2500147/2016 whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellants of Cr.A. No.4831/2017 under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation of three months R.I. each.

2. It is submitted that appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the matter. It is a case of accidental fall, as a result of

which injured who was about 70 years of age died. Thus, it is submitted that a case of accidental fall has been converted into a case of homicidal death of the deceased which needs to be set aside and the appeal filed by the convicted appellants may be allowed. Reading from the evidence of Smt. Munni Solanki (PW-2), it is submitted that this witness, in her cross- examination, admitted that her husband was suffering from diabeties. It is also admitted by Smt. Munni Solanki (PW-2) in para-20 that age of her husband was about 70 years. In para-21, this witness deposed that when her husband had fallen down, that time Dilip had given his Ghamchha and had tied it to the head of her husband to stop bleeding. Thus, it is submitted that firstly allegation against appellant-Dilip is not made out inasmuch as he was benevolent and had extended a helping hand. It is also submitted that since the victim-Ramji Solanki had sustained injuries due to fall, the conviction of

3 MCRC-8183-2018 the appellants may be set aside.

3. Reading from the evidence of post-mortem doctor i.e. Dr. S.K. Dubey (PW-13), it is pointed out that this witness admitted that the injuries which was found on the body of deceased-Ramji Solanki, seen in Article-'5' and Article-'6', photographs, could have been caused with the stones. Thus, it is pointed out that its a case of cent percent accidental fall which resulted in bleeding and became cause of death. It is also pointed out that Dr.S.K. Dubey (PW-13) has not mentioned that death was homicidal in nature. He has only mentioned that death had occurred on account of head injuries resulting excessive bleeding and shock. Death occurred within 24 hours of post-mortem. It is submitted that Smt. Mamta Solanki (PW-1) is not an eye witness as she admitted that she had reached the place of the incident when her mother-in-law Smt. Munni Solanki (PW-2) had given a call for providing a blanket.

4. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in his turn, supports the impugned judgment and submits that Dr. S.K. Dubey (P.W.-13), in para-9 of his examination-in-chief, deposed that injury as was found on the body of Ramji Solanki could have been caused by the Fawda (spade) which was produced for his reporting. His query report is Ex.P/21- A. Thus, it is prayed that no indulgence is called for and the impugned judgment of conviction may be maintained and, in fact, accused be convicted under Section 302 of IPC.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. Smt. Mamta Solanki (PW-1) is the daughter-in-law of deceased-

4 MCRC-8183-2018 Ramji Solanki. This witness deposed that she was cleaning the wheat in her courtyard along with her mother-in-law when she had seen the incident. But, in cross-examination of this witness, it has come on record that from courtyard, place of the incident is not visible and it is evident that this witness had not seen the incident but had reached the place of the incident when her mother-in-law had called her with a blanket.

6. As far as Smt. Munni Solanki (PW-2) is concerned, this witness has given unrebuttal evidence in regard to seeing the incident. However, their appears to be an exaggeration in regard to the role of appellant-Dilip. It is a case of single blow. Fawda (spade) which is recovered at the instance of appellant No.1-Sanju alias Sanjay contains human blood as per FSL report (Ex.P/32). Both the pieces of cement concrete i.e. Article-'A' and the Fadwa (spade) Article-'D' contain 'B' group of blood. Thus, as far as appellant No.1-Sanju alias Sanjay is concerned, their story that it was a case of sudden fall on account of deceased being a patient of diabeties and then corroborating it with the finding of Dr. S.K. Dubey (PW-13) that the stones which were recovered vide Article-'5' and Article-'6' could have caused said injury, is not made out in view of specific FSL report (Ex.P/32) which clearly makes mention of not only presence of human blood on the Fawda (spade), but also of the same blood group as was found on the cement concrete road.

7. Dr. S.K.Dubey (PW-13) has clearly deposed that as per his query report (Ex.P/21-A), injury could have been caused with the said Fadwa (spade) which was produced before him for query reporting.

5 MCRC-8183-2018

8. When these facts are taken into consideration, then this Court is of the opinion that as far as Dilip is concerned, its a case of over implication. It is an admitted fact that there was an old property dispute between the complainant parties and the accused parties. We are conscious that enmity is a double edged sword. However, role of appellant No.1-Sanju alias Sanjay could not be cleared though learned counsel for the convicted appellants has vehemently argued that it was a case of accidental fall, but could not establish that how a Fawda (spade), which was recovered at the instance of Sanju alias Sanjay vide Ex.P/13 that too from behind the disputed house where it was hidden under a heap of garbage, can be said to be an open space. Recovery is from a conspicuous place.

9. When all these facts are taken into consideration, then we are of the opinion that neither there was any common intention nor any ground to convict appellant No.2-Dilip in Cr.A. No.4831/2017 whose conduct has been rather exemplary and who had given a helping hand immediately by taking out his Ghamchha which he was wearing to cover the head of injured- Ramji Solanki, therefore, there being no common intention, conviction of appellant No.2-Dilip in Cr.A. No.4831/2017 cannot be upheld and the same is hereby set aside and his bail bonds are hereby discharged.

10. As far as appellant No.1-Sanju alias Sanjay in Cr.A. No.4831/2017 is concerned, there is not only eye witness account but also corroboration of his complicity in view of the query report given by Dr. S.K. Dubey (PW-13) and also recovery carried out vide Ex.P/13 so also FSL report (Ex.P/32), therefore, we do no see any reason to show any indulgence in the matter of

6 MCRC-8183-2018 Sanju alias Sanjay and, thus, his conviction and sentence as handed down by the learned trial Court is herby maintained.

11. At this stage, Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that both, the complainant and the State, have filed appeals for enhancement. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that State is pressing its appeal for enhancing the sentence to under Section 302 of IPC. However, when examined then facts of the case reveal that it was a sudden altercation, case will fall under Exception-4 of Section 300 of IPC, therefore, once a case falls under Exception-4 of Section 300 of IPC, then every homicidal death being not a murder, convicted appellants are entitled to benefit of that provision and, therefore, we reject the plea put forth by learned Public Prosecutor for altering the conviction from one under Section 304 Part -II of IPC to under Section 302 of IPC.

12. Section 304 Part-II of IPC provides for imprisonment upto ten years. Trial Court has exercised its discretion and has imposed lesser punishment. We do not see any ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. Section 304 Part-II of IPC provides imprisonment upto ten years and once discretion has been exercised by learned trial Court, there is no perversity in exercise of the said discretion, and there being no material to the effect that there was any arbitrariness or

perversity in exercise of discretion, we do not find any reason to call indulgence in the matter of exercise of discretion by the learned trial Court, therefore, the appeals filed by the State as well as by the complainant party

7 MCRC-8183-2018 deserve to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.4381/2017 is allowed in part. and conviction and sentence of appellant No.2-Dilip is hereby set aside. Appellant No.2-Dilip is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby discharged. However, conviction and sentence of appellant NO.1-Sanju alias Sanjay as imposed by learned trial Court is hereby maintained.

14. Cr.A. No.176/2018 filed by the State and M.Cr.C. No.8183/2018 filed by complainant party are hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN) JUDGE JUDGE ts